1. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe I exist or not, so I have no motivation to send you anything. Most gods are described as wanting humans to acknowledge their existance so there would be a motivation on the gods part to act in such a way as to produce awareness of their existence.

2. It would require cost and effort on my part to send you money. For a omnipotent god, sending something to someone would be effortless and costless.

3 There's never been a claim that I'll give people money when asked. The bible contains written claims that god responded to various requests.

4. I'd give you an explanation of the greater good resulting from not curing you and then let you decide if you wanted the cure, if you did then I'd give it to you.

5. Do you really want to start arguing that cancer has a net benefit to humanity? I can promise you that the rest of humanity disagrees with that idea.

6. Not really, if a witness in a criminal trial said that a miracle occured like water turning into wine their testimony would be ignored as unreliable. The reason being that miracles don't seem to happen anymore.

7. There's no actual mention of jesus or biblical miracles in any secular contemporary records, only mentions of christians who believed in jesus. It's like using a news report saying that scientologists believe in Xenu as evidence that scientology is true.

8. But let's say that the miracles in the bible actually happened, that would clearly indicate that god was willing and able to interact with the world at one point, and yet now he appears to not be willing.

(Points 9 & 10 separated for ease of response)

9. I don't agree that the god described in the bible, especially the old testament, is an omniscient, fair, good, or wise ruler however.

10. It depends on how you mean 'fair' since fair could apply to both cruel rulers and benevolent rulers. If god puts out a decree that breathing=50 lashes and enforces it equally on everyone then the enforcement would be 'fair' but the punishment would be cruel and excessive. If a fair and benevolent god existed then certainly it would be welcome. A fair and cruel god would not be. I don't take comfort in gods not existing, it's never occured to me to think 'gee I'm glad there's no such thing as god'.

1. He has made His presence well known already, yet for those who choose not to believe. giving them money or blessings is easily explained away. Many of the people in the day of Jesus saw His miracles, and still did not recognize and worship Him, so God knows that overt signs will still not change people's minds.

2. I already explained the economics behind this, and sometimes He does use the church or other entities to give people money that are in need, it is just not overt ie a hand reaching from the sky and handing you a sack of money.

3. Whoops, you missed about every point I made about economics, and the idea that “can respond to prayer” does not equal “will respond immediately, how we expect, or at all”. Apparently logic is no longer in play here?

4. People would never choose that ultimate good because of the pain and suffering it takes to get there.

5. A total distortion of my argument. I am not diminishing the pain and suffering that cancer patients and their families go through. I am just saying that looking death in the face can change things for the better. It has a tendency to make us re-evaluate our actions and relationships and ultimately teach us to stop taking all of our blessings for granted. People on their death bed often turn to God for comfort, and finally receive eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. I can think of no greater good. As for those who believe already, it can remind them that tomorrow is never guaranteed. Their optimism and faith in God through such trying times can lead more people to God.

6. True, yet at the time, thousands of people had witnessed miracles happening. A few died to testify that it had truly happened, rather than recant and live. I don’t know how you measure integrity, but dying for a cause demonstrates a lot of integrity to me.

7. This is a non-sequitur. I never claimed anything about secular contemporary sources, nor would I use them to prove the existence and miracles of Christ. This is not to say that there are no records of miracles, but obviously none of these people were eyewitnesses to Christ.

8. From the perspective of a non-believer, you assess that God has done nothing lately, yet you have not demonstrated this claim to be true. Clearly God is no longer roaming the earth in the flesh healing people, but that is not to say that He never heals people anymore. This is a positive claim that has no basis as I have demonstrated.

9. I am sure you would have rather lived in one of the other societies in the Old Testament, you know the ones that had orgies and sacrificed their children to gods? Or sodomized visitors? Would you kill a town of people that are more dangerous than Nazi’s? This was the evil that God was stamping out in the OT. How quick people are to gloss over those parts. There are plenty of websites, books, and public figures taking pot-shots at the OT, judging God’s actions without really appreciating the master plan to save the eternal souls of the world population, despite all of them being evil to some degree and deserving to die for their evilness. I consider God to be quite forgiving, benevolent, yet not ignoring the need for justice.

1. A unicorn is a unicorn2. A rocks dream is a rocks dream3. All Qid are Urp. Orm is a Qid. Therefore Orm is Urp.

All three of these deal with subjects that don't exist and yet they are all logically true.

Yes, I agree. They are all logically true. But are they true in reality. Has anyone ever seen a unicorn? Since “nothing” is what rocks dream about, a rock’s dream does not exist in reality. Show me an Urp?

All women are highly intelligent.Mary is a woman.Therefore Mary is highly intelligent.

Now this might be a good logical syllogism, but we know this is not true in reality. We have all encountered some women in our lives who think a vegetarian is the man who doctors animals.

Miles, I must remind you that you chose to live in a materialist’s worldview where only matter, energy (and space) exists. But in this worldview, you have to account for all the immaterial entities that you encounter (which you use but are inconsistent with your worldview), such as mathematics, information, laws of logic, and most importantly, rational thought. How do you make the connection between the physical (rocks, chemicals, molecules) and these immaterial things?

Einstein’s Gulf: We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions (1944, p. 289).

Quoting Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner (concerning the implications of Einstein’s Gulf): “If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity [like God] capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material [i.e. spiritual] in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information [the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law] is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial.”

Not sure of the source of this. I had it in my writings: The materialist’s problem is that physical world is never observed spontaneously transforming itself (on its own recognizance) into abstract ideas. The sun cannot sky-write the fact that it is about 93,000,000 miles from the earth. Neither do events transform themselves automatically into propositions. The meteor that collided with the earth leaving the crater out near Winslow, Arizona, cannot appear on CNN to tell of its journey, or to announce how hot it got streaking across the sky. Nor do space-time relations perceive, define, or narrate their unfolding over time. Events and relations between objects in time and space do not come stamped with date, time, and place of manufacture. While the earth may be affected by the moons of Jupiter in ways that science might detect, a planet is no more able to announce its age or recount its history, or declare the forces to which it is subject, than a dog can recite his pedigree or pronounce his mother's name.

Miles, postulating that the laws of logic would be true if you did not exist is not a good argument. The laws of gravity would exist and be true if God had not created Adam and Eve. Laws are not physical. They are not created. But they can be discovered. Moral laws describe God’s nature. Logic laws describe how God thinks. Physical laws describe how the physical world functions. Now if God had created a different universe, the physical laws would, by necessity, be different. But could the moral laws be different than what they are? Yes, but then God would violate His own nature. If Jesus had bowed His knee to Satan, sin would have entered the Godhead and God would have come undone. If God violates a law of logic, He denies Himself, because Jesus said, “I am the truth,” and all truth and knowledge is in God.

Miles, I was surprised that you admitted the laws of logic are absolute. Most atheists do not like absolutes. In “The Great Debate” Dr. Stein chose to argue that the laws of logic were conventional—that which is agreed upon by men or societies. His opponent, Christian apologist Dr. Bahnsen logically pointed out that if laws of logic were conventional then a man’s car could be in the parking lot and not in the parking lot at the same time. And he showed that this would make truth relative and there would be no need for the debate. But I am curious as to why you don’t deem laws of morality absolute? I think I know why. You would then have to admit to a higher Moral Authority. The atheist can kabuki dance around and play logic games with laws of logic, but when it comes to morality, he is getting dangerously close to God.

The short answer is that logic is a created system is based on axioms (aka the laws of logic) which are considered self-evident or true by virtue of themselves. Axioms by definition are never proven although they can sometimes be disproven. The laws/axioms that you are asking for a justification for don't require any justification other than themselves.

Miles, I know you’re intelligent enough to grasp my argument; but you don’t want to face the truth. Laws of logic, mathematics, information, reason (of any kind) can’t exist in a materialistic, atheistic universe BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PHYSICAL and are not part of the physical universe. The laws of logic describe how God thinks and how you and I ought to think. They do not describe how a rock thinks because a rock does not think; nor can they come from the rock. Laws describe things—whether abstract or real. Laws are not physical.

Notice too that you deny the source of all the immaterial entities that exist, but then use them to argue that only the material world exists. You must use God’s gifts to argue against Him.

And I don’t know if you’re aware that you are using logic to justify logic. Now while I am guilty of circular reasoning when I use God and His word as my Ultimate Standard, logic can’t be justified using logic. To justify logic apart from circular reasoning, you must seek the Foundation of logic outside of logic itself. The physical world will not give you this foundation. In fact, the physical world obeys the nonphysical world of logic and reason. Everyone must have an ultimate standard by which all else is proved true or false. The Christian creationist has God and His word. The materialist’s standard is matter. But then he must explain how he can reason (not physical), using laws of logic (not physical) and know (not physical) that only the physical exists.

If laws of logic are created my men, then they would be conventional. But then you must explain why they are universal and invariant. If they were conventional, they would be just that—conventional. In a conventional world, truth and logic would be like the British driving on the left side of the road and the Americans on the right.

Nobody claims something to be moral and immoral at the same time in the same way.

This is not true. One relativist can claim that it’s moral to dismember a baby in the womb (the pro-abortionist). The second relativist can claim just the opposite. So in the relativists’ worldview, dismembering of the baby would be both moral and immoral at the same time. Neither relativist could accuse the other of being moral or immoral. Neither has a standard outside himself and each is a law unto himself. All is subjective and relative. But is it true that it is immoral to dismember a baby in the womb and true that it is moral to dismember a baby in the womb at the same time in the same sense? The Christian has an Absolute Standard outside of himself (Ex. 21:21-23).

Different people may hold different opinions on the morality of an action but that is not a logical contradiction since two different viewpoints from two different people doesn't fit the "in the same way" condition.

You posted your viewpoint. Is it true? How could you justify your viewpoint against a differing viewpoint? Both would have to be true which would violate the law of non-contradiction. But at the outset of our dialogue, you admitted laws of logic were absolute. An atheist can’t live in his worldview and remain consistent.

Morality is relative because it depends on context and desired outcome. An action that is morally permissible in one situation or perspective may not be morally permissible in another. Whether an action is morally correct depends on what results are desired. The generally universal moral rules about murder, assault, etc. are a result of generally universal desires for continued life, absence of pain, etc. There are multiple ways to derive the immorality of murder, it's simply a matter of picking one. Utilitarianism would say it's wrong if the harm outweighs the benefit. Kant would say it's wrong because it treats people as a means rather than an end. The golden rule would say it's wrong because I wouldn't want to be murdered.

Miles, I submit that you could not live in this relativistic moral world you describe here. If morality is dependent on a “desired outcome,” then my desire to murder you and take your money would be justified by the outcome I desire. And no relativist could condemn me. He could “prefer” that I not murder him, but he could not proclaim I was wrong.

Moral inconsistency is an absolute determining factor for wrong. Truth is non-contradictory and therefore can’t include falsehood. (I’m sure you agree with this.) But then you become inconsistent (as all atheists do) and argue that morality can be inconsistent. Morality is also non-contradictory and a behavior can’t be both moral and immoral at the same time. If one simultaneously embraces both sides of a moral issue, this equates to being immoral. Just as truth can’t include falsehoods, morality can’t include immorality. Any argument that permits truth or morality to be founded on arbitrariness fails.

The concept of absolute moral rules suffers the same logical problems as the concept of an irrisistable force and a immovable object (namely that only one can exist in any universe). With a little imagination and some help from the philosophers friend "a man with a gun and horrible demands (i.e. murder this woman or I'll murder her and three others)" it's pretty easy to set nearly any 2 conceivable moral rules in opposition to each other or themselves. If an action is wrong under some circumstances but not others, that action isn't absolutely morally wrong.

I’ll address your last sentence. Is this true? Who says it’s true? This can’t be true in your relativistic worldview. What’s true for you is not true for me. What’s moral for you is not moral for me. What’s logical for you is not logical for me. Such is life in the relativists worldview.

The statement "something can't come from nothing" lacks any support if it's true that 'nothing' includes an absence of laws. It can only be justified if there are laws such as conservation laws or logical laws that apply even when there isn't anything.I'd also suggest looking at Noether's theorem for an explanation of what causes conservation laws.

Miles, we live in the here and now. You and I and the universe exist. There are physical laws that describe the physical universe as to what can and can’t be. I am always incredulous when I dialogue with atheists. They claim to be scientific; but when presented with science, they do illogical contortions and gymnastics to avoid two of the most tested and observed laws (laws of thermodynamics) and postulate that it is possible for nothing to Big Bang and give us this magnificent universe that is beyond description in its magnificence. Now I will agree that the atheist relativist’s argument above would be true. But the Christian has a supernatural Creator who is beyond and prior to the physical universe. The physical laws came into existence after God created the physical universe. And the first law says that a rock can’t create itself from nothing. If a natural origin were plausible, then the universe could have created itself from nothing when it did not yet exist—which is preposterous and can only be found humorous.

Just curious: Why do you believe that nothing can create something and dismiss, out of hand, the possibility of a Creator God. Your belief takes more blind faith than the Christian creationist’s.

The universe could certainly have come from vaccuum (the physical equivilant of nothing). It is in fact still nothing if you sum up the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravitational potential energy. It's roughly similar to saying 0=1 + -1. Usable energy can increase via expansion of the universe as long as entropy also increases. I posted how this works in post 21 of the linked thread below.

http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=84526Basically if the universe starts at the upper limit for entropy for a small volume, when it expands the upper limit for entropy is increased. The current entropy can increase up to this new upper limit (aka usable energy becomes available). As long as the upper limit for entropy increases and the current entropy increases at a different rate, usable energy is available.You can’t have matter without energy. And you can’t have energy without matter. You can’t argue that we can use matter to create energy. I would ask, “Where did you get the matter”? And you would only reply, “From the energy.” And, of course, I would then ask, “Where did you get the energy?” But God gave you both at the same time, like the chicken and the egg. This is an insurmountable conundrum for the atheist.

I rule out specific gods like Yahweh due to plot holes or incompetence attributed to them in the stories about them. (Such as placing a fruit tree that wasn't ever to be touched in the only place it could be touched or God somehow being both all-knowing and not aware of the serpent as it was tempting Eve.)A general god is ruled out since all tests for gods end up negative or indistinguishable from placebo/null hypothesis.

Are you here judging God morally? If so, by what standard? Not the atheistic relativist’s, surely? But I do want to correct one cliche that is not true and is espoused by Christians as well as atheists. God knows everything knowable that He wants to know. He can’t grant man the freedom to accept or reject Him and then know in advance what he will do. This is not logically possible even for God. Nor can God be illogical and attempt to draw a square circle.

Love must be given freely. I value my wife’s love because she is free to love another. God could have put Adam and Eve in the Garden with no exit door. The Tree of Knowledge (which represented the law) was the door out of the Garden, and man was free to stay or leave. A sick man would put his wife in a house with no doors or windows to leave.

The relationship God wants with man is a relationship not based on law but on love. The man who does not commit adultery because he fears getting caught (the law) is not motivated by love for God or his wife. You would not like that kind of relationship and neither does God. But once man sinned and placed himself under the curse of the Tree (the law), he was condemned forever by it. For if he keeps the law, he becomes puffed up and self-righteous and does not need God; and if he breaks the law, he is condemned and runs from God. Since man can’t keep the law and is condemned by it, God sent His Son Jesus Christ to keep the law perfectly and then die for the sins of all men. Men who deny God and the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ, condemn themselves. God does not send them to Hell; rather He lets them live eternally where they want to live—apart from Him.

It’s your choice. But all men who choose to deny their creator God will be without excuse (Rom. 1:18-22).

Miles I will answer your posts if you care to respond. But I have some things pressing at the moment, and my posts will be delayed.

[quote] name='ringo' timestamp='1341267201' post='84769']
Your premise was that information can "only" come from an intelligent source. Whether or not I'm an intelligent source isn't relevant to that premise.[/quote]

Ringo, let's reflect:

Ringo's Post 49: "... No. I don't know absolutely that I exist..."

Rngo's Post 90: "I asked if your absolute logic can solve a practical problem. Surely you can at least come up with Step One."

So, in response to your challenge, I used the following "absolute logic" to not only prove that you exist, but that you are intelligent.

A. For a human to ponder his existence, he must first exist himself.
B. Ringo pondered his existence.
C. Therefore Ringo must exist.

A. Information can only come from an intelligent source.
B. I received information from Ringo.
C. Therefore Ringo is an intelligent source.

Not only did i prove that you exist, but that you're an intelligent source. And I did not get so much as a simple "thank you, TeeJay."

[quote]I wouldn't necessarily say that "all" knowledge is gained by observation. I'd say that you need observation to solve practcal problems. Unless a premise describes an observation, it's worthless in a practical situation.[/quote]

Would you say that building a house is a "practical problem." If so, does the architect observe the existence of the house before or after construction? Miles you should sit back and think more carefully before you post.

[quote]Logic depends on true premises for reliable conclusions. What we're talking about here is the truth of the premises and that isn't always black or white. Whether or not the engine is firing is not a yes/no situation.[/quote]

Is what you post here true? When are you going to learn that all relativistic arguments self-destruct. If your argument here is true, then it is definitely black and not white. And then being true, it would defeat its own argument that things are not always black or white. And if what you post here is false, then it also defeats itself. Again, you should really think more carefully before you post.

[quote]I have never denied using logic. I'm saying that logic is worthless without premises that are connected to reality - and reality is not always abolute.[/quote]

"...reality is not always absolute." Can you give me an example of a reality that is somewhat absolute? Would you care to retract what you have posted here?

[quote]It's a poor teacher who blames his student.

So far, you have failed to show this student how you use logic to solve a practical problem. I've given you the opportunity to solve a practical problem but you resolutely refuse to do so. Based on those observations, what can I conclude but that you don't know what you're talking about?
[/quote]

In light of my showing you that you exist and are intelligent, would you man up and admit that you are wrong?

[quote] name='ringo' timestamp='1341418277' post='84805']
Whether or not you think evolution does anything practical has no bearing on my standards. I ask for the same evidence from evolution as I do from anything else. Evolution has met my standard. TeeJay has not.
[/quote]

Would you say that building a house is a "practical problem." If so, does the architect observe the existence of the house before or after construction?

Okay, let's go with that example. You're the architect. What's the first step in building a house?

Can you give me an example of a reality that is somewhat absolute?

I've given it to you repeatedly: the nickel in my pocket. It's existence or non-existence is absolute but your knowledge of its existence is not. Unless you know it exists, its existence is irrelevant. So how would you go about obtaining that knowledge?

In light of my showing you that you exist and are intelligent, would you man up and admit that you are wrong?

You've shown me no such thing. As I said before, your premises are unsubstantiated.

As I've said from the beginning, my standard is a drill that drills real holes in real things. If your logic is going to meet my standard, it has to be able to solve real problems, like finding a nickel in my pocket or oil in my back yard or why my car won't start.

1. He has made His presence well known already, yet for those who choose not to believe. giving them money or blessings is easily explained away. Many of the people in the day of Jesus saw His miracles, and still did not recognize and worship Him, so God knows that overt signs will still not change people's minds.

2. I already explained the economics behind this, and sometimes He does use the church or other entities to give people money that are in need, it is just not overt ie a hand reaching from the sky and handing you a sack of money.

3. Whoops, you missed about every point I made about economics, and the idea that “can respond to prayer” does not equal “will respond immediately, how we expect, or at all”. Apparently logic is no longer in play here?

4. People would never choose that ultimate good because of the pain and suffering it takes to get there.

5. A total distortion of my argument. I am not diminishing the pain and suffering that cancer patients and their families go through. I am just saying that looking death in the face can change things for the better. It has a tendency to make us re-evaluate our actions and relationships and ultimately teach us to stop taking all of our blessings for granted. People on their death bed often turn to God for comfort, and finally receive eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. I can think of no greater good. As for those who believe already, it can remind them that tomorrow is never guaranteed. Their optimism and faith in God through such trying times can lead more people to God.

6. True, yet at the time, thousands of people had witnessed miracles happening. A few died to testify that it had truly happened, rather than recant and live. I don’t know how you measure integrity, but dying for a cause demonstrates a lot of integrity to me.

7. This is a non-sequitur. I never claimed anything about secular contemporary sources, nor would I use them to prove the existence and miracles of Christ. This is not to say that there are no records of miracles, but obviously none of these people were eyewitnesses to Christ.

8. From the perspective of a non-believer, you assess that God has done nothing lately, yet you have not demonstrated this claim to be true. Clearly God is no longer roaming the earth in the flesh healing people, but that is not to say that He never heals people anymore. This is a positive claim that has no basis as I have demonstrated.

9. I am sure you would have rather lived in one of the other societies in the Old Testament, you know the ones that had orgies and sacrificed their children to gods? Or sodomized visitors? Would you kill a town of people that are more dangerous than Nazi’s? This was the evil that God was stamping out in the OT. How quick people are to gloss over those parts. There are plenty of websites, books, and public figures taking pot-shots at the OT, judging God’s actions without really appreciating the master plan to save the eternal souls of the world population, despite all of them being evil to some degree and deserving to die for their evilness. I consider God to be quite forgiving, benevolent, yet not ignoring the need for justice.

10. I see.

1 and 6 are contradictory. If miracles played a part in convincing people in the past, what would prevent miracles from playing a part in convincing people now? I would certainly have to rethink things if something simple like a dropped pen didn't fall and instead wrote by itself "christianity is correct". Or if clouds across the world formed the words "jesus is lord" in multiple languages.

2 and 3. Try to get past the god giving people money idea and consider the lack of any direct interaction on any subject. God doesn't have to respond immediately, or how we want. A delayed message saying No would be as useful as a prompt message saying Yes for simply determining that god were real. If god never responds at all that's when it becomes impossible to distinguish god from something not real.

4 contradicts 7. If nobody would choose to experience pain and misery in service of a greater good then you can't turn around and say that martyrs chose to experience pain and misery in service of the greater good of telling what they considered to be the truth.

5 is one of the most dangerous viewpoints I can imagine. If getting people into heaven is an acceptable reason for letting cancer continue, where do you draw the line? Should vaccinations be stopped so there's more cases of deathbed conversions by sick people? Is there any level of suffering which is not acceptable if the result is more people getting into heaven?

6 dying for a cause indicates belief in a cause, not the truth of the cause.

7 You said that biblical and secular sources were undeniable testimony. I assumed you were talking about secular accounts of biblical stories. If you meant something else then please elaborate on what these secular sources are and why they are undeniable.

8. Double blind studies on the efficacy of medical prayer routinely show no effect. If god is healing people it's being done undetectably and with limits on certain ailments. For example, god appears to have no interest in curing rabies since it's 100% fatal when not treated. Limb regrowth is another area where god is noticeably absent. In the bible a large portion of those mentioned as asking jesus for medical help received it. Is there a reason god needs to be walking around in the flesh to have a high response rate?

9. This is one of those cases where there's plot holes in the stories told about god. People don't just decide to start sacrificing their own children for no reason and they don't continue if they think it's counterproductive. God could have stepped in and fixed whatever problem the sacrifices were intended to address before the initial sacrifice was made, or he could have made the problem worse after the initial sacrifice was made. There's also the problem of how any group could be dangerous and require killing if there were a omnipotent god willing to step in. How many times would non-lethal lightning have to knock you unconcious every time you tried to rape a visitor before you figured out the link between cause and consequence. Would you keep trying to rape visitors? How could a city of people be dangerous if every time they tried to attack another town their weapons broke or they got lost on the way or they just kept tripping over their feet. What if each murder victim simply got up unharmed. Before you say this would restrict free will, remember that free will doesn't mean the ability to accomplish anything you want, it means the ability to make choices. I can choose to try to hold my breath forever, I'll simply fail to accomplish it. A group could choose to attempt to hurt other people and god could simply make it impossible for them to succeed without interfering with their ability to make that choice. For an omnipotent, omniscient god to be unable to either prevent or solve a problem in a way that doesn't involve killing everyone is a sign of bad writing.

[quote] name='ringo' timestamp='1341590941' post='84875']
As I've said from the beginning, my standard is a drill that drills real holes in real things. If your logic is going to meet my standard, it has to be able to solve real problems, like finding a nickel in my pocket or oil in my back yard or why my car won't start.
[/quote]

Ringo,

"No man comes to the Father except through Me [Jesus Christ]."
Ringo replaced Jesus Christ with a mechanical drill.
Therefore, Ringo will go to Hell (without a drill to drill holes).

Above you did not like my logic, so I will use yours:

You posted: "Logic is worthless without premises that are connected with reality--reality is not always absolute." You can't possibly know if you exist in reality since "reality is not always absolute." Until you verify that you exist, why should we answer posts? When I receive verification that I am indeed dialoging with a real person that exists, I will not respond.

[quote] name='miles' timestamp='1341627018' post='84900']
1 and 6 are contradictory. If miracles played a part in convincing people in the past, what would prevent miracles from playing a part in convincing people now? I would certainly have to rethink things if something simple like a dropped pen didn't fall and instead wrote by itself "christianity is correct". Or if clouds across the world formed the words "jesus is lord" in multiple languages.

2 and 3. Try to get past the god giving people money idea and consider the lack of any direct interaction on any subject. God doesn't have to respond immediately, or how we want. A delayed message saying No would be as useful as a prompt message saying Yes for simply determining that god were real. If god never responds at all that's when it becomes impossible to distinguish god from something not real.

4 contradicts 7. If nobody would choose to experience pain and misery in service of a greater good then you can't turn around and say that martyrs chose to experience pain and misery in service of the greater good of telling what they considered to be the truth.

5 is one of the most dangerous viewpoints I can imagine. If getting people into heaven is an acceptable reason for letting cancer continue, where do you draw the line? Should vaccinations be stopped so there's more cases of deathbed conversions by sick people? Is there any level of suffering which is not acceptable if the result is more people getting into heaven?

6 dying for a cause indicates belief in a cause, not the truth of the cause.

7 You said that biblical and secular sources were undeniable testimony. I assumed you were talking about secular accounts of biblical stories. If you meant something else then please elaborate on what these secular sources are and why they are undeniable.

8. Double blind studies on the efficacy of medical prayer routinely show no effect. If god is healing people it's being done undetectably and with limits on certain ailments. For example, god appears to have no interest in curing rabies since it's 100% fatal when not treated. Limb regrowth is another area where god is noticeably absent. In the bible a large portion of those mentioned as asking jesus for medical help received it. Is there a reason god needs to be walking around in the flesh to have a high response rate?

9. This is one of those cases where there's plot holes in the stories told about god. People don't just decide to start sacrificing their own children for no reason and they don't continue if they think it's counterproductive. God could have stepped in and fixed whatever problem the sacrifices were intended to address before the initial sacrifice was made, or he could have made the problem worse after the initial sacrifice was made. There's also the problem of how any group could be dangerous and require killing if there were a omnipotent god willing to step in. How many times would non-lethal lightning have to knock you unconcious every time you tried to rape a visitor before you figured out the link between cause and consequence. Would you keep trying to rape visitors? How could a city of people be dangerous if every time they tried to attack another town their weapons broke or they got lost on the way or they just kept tripping over their feet. What if each murder victim simply got up unharmed. Before you say this would restrict free will, remember that free will doesn't mean the ability to accomplish anything you want, it means the ability to make choices. I can choose to try to hold my breath forever, I'll simply fail to accomplish it. A group could choose to attempt to hurt other people and god could simply make it impossible for them to succeed without interfering with their ability to make that choice. For an omnipotent, omniscient god to be unable to either prevent or solve a problem in a way that doesn't involve killing everyone is a sign of bad writing.
[/quote]

Miles,

I must remind you--again. By your own admission, you are a moral relativist. But in this post you are making a moral judgments concerning God's actions. If you stay in your own relativistic moral world, you really could not do this. You really can't live consistently in your worldview. You must use God's Immaterial logic and rational thought to reason and argue that there is no God and only matter exists; and you are now borrowing His moral standard to judge Him immoral. Of course, when you do this, you affirm your worldview to be false and the Christian worldview true.

Question: If God appeared to you as a pillar of fire or a burning bush and performed a genuine, irrefraggable miracle for you, would you accept Him?

Another question: Why agnostic in your bio? From our dialogue, I discern that you are not wanting to be convinced. I have debated atheists who are less sure of God's existence than you seem to be.

1. 1 and 6 are contradictory. If miracles played a part in convincing people in the past, what would prevent miracles from playing a part in convincing people now? I would certainly have to rethink things if something simple like a dropped pen didn't fall and instead wrote by itself "christianity is correct". Or if clouds across the world formed the words "jesus is lord" in multiple languages.

2. (answering 2 and 3). Try to get past the god giving people money idea and consider the lack of any direct interaction on any subject. God doesn't have to respond immediately, or how we want. A delayed message saying No would be as useful as a prompt message saying Yes for simply determining that god were real. If god never responds at all that's when it becomes impossible to distinguish god from something not real.

3. 4 contradicts 7. If nobody would choose to experience pain and misery in service of a greater good then you can't turn around and say that martyrs chose to experience pain and misery in service of the greater good of telling what they considered to be the truth.

4. 5 is one of the most dangerous viewpoints I can imagine. If getting people into heaven is an acceptable reason for letting cancer continue, where do you draw the line? Should vaccinations be stopped so there's more cases of deathbed conversions by sick people? Is there any level of suffering which is not acceptable if the result is more people getting into heaven?

5. dying for a cause indicates belief in a cause, not the truth of the cause.

6. You said that biblical and secular sources were undeniable testimony. I assumed you were talking about secular accounts of biblical stories. If you meant something else then please elaborate on what these secular sources are and why they are undeniable.

7. Double blind studies on the efficacy of medical prayer routinely show no effect. If god is healing people it's being done undetectably and with limits on certain ailments. For example, god appears to have no interest in curing rabies since it's 100% fatal when not treated. Limb regrowth is another area where god is noticeably absent. In the bible a large portion of those mentioned as asking jesus for medical help received it. Is there a reason god needs to be walking around in the flesh to have a high response rate?

8. This is one of those cases where there's plot holes in the stories told about god. People don't just decide to start sacrificing their own children for no reason and they don't continue if they think it's counterproductive. God could have stepped in and fixed whatever problem the sacrifices were intended to address before the initial sacrifice was made, or he could have made the problem worse after the initial sacrifice was made. There's also the problem of how any group could be dangerous and require killing if there were a omnipotent god willing to step in. How many times would non-lethal lightning have to knock you unconcious every time you tried to rape a visitor before you figured out the link between cause and consequence. Would you keep trying to rape visitors? How could a city of people be dangerous if every time they tried to attack another town their weapons broke or they got lost on the way or they just kept tripping over their feet. What if each murder victim simply got up unharmed. Before you say this would restrict free will, remember that free will doesn't mean the ability to accomplish anything you want, it means the ability to make choices. I can choose to try to hold my breath forever, I'll simply fail to accomplish it. A group could choose to attempt to hurt other people and god could simply make it impossible for them to succeed without interfering with their ability to make that choice. For an omnipotent, omniscient god to be unable to either prevent or solve a problem in a way that doesn't involve killing everyone is a sign of bad writing.

1. I really do not know exactly why God does not choose to perform overt miracles that you are describing today for non-believers. I will have to ask Him, but I will give more detail as to my thoughts on this later. 1 and 6 are not contradictory at all, they are completely different. 1 is about overt miracles not convincing all people that Jesus was God since they wanted to believe otherwise. 6 is about that evidence being established by those who witnessed His resurrection by testifying to it on pain of death. This fits in with my point perfectly, overt miracles don’t convince everyone, and historical evidence has already been established about the deity of Christ so overt miracles would not add anything to that fact. “Christ is Lord” written in the clouds would be assumed that Christians put it there, not God. There’s always a convenient explanation for those who don’t want to believe.

2. Yet you have not proven that he has not responded ever, so your claim that He never does is an argument from ignorance.

3. No, they don’t contradict and I am not even sure why you would claim that except to make your arguments look better, or maybe you typed the wrong numbers? The martyrs who chose to die witnessed Jesus come back from the dead. Once the martyrs stood in the company of God, they could not deny Him, knowing that they would face Him after death. The ultimate good is to be saved. No one would choose to be saved since they all start out as enemies of God. They especially would not choose to suffer to get to know who He is, but this is what the result can be.

4. This is one of the most dangerous fallacies I can imagine. Can we stop being overdramatic now? You take the suffering that God allows in all His omniscient glory, and red herring the conversation over to personal actions made by the followers of God. No I do not advocate withholding care from cancer patients. Quite the opposite, I believe that the availability of treatment and wisdom to discover new treatments is part of the common grace of God.

Many people suffered and died to get people into heaven, ESPECIALLY Jesus, so no, no amount of suffering is too much to get people into heaven. This suffering is for God to decide, not us lowly humans who can’t even decide who to choose for president.

5. Would you die if someone threatened to chop off your head or recant evolution? People don’t simply die for any belief, it has to be worth dying for. In the case of the apostles, they witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, which changed their mourning to hope, and their denial of Him to an iron will to testify for Him in the face of death.

6. Are you talking about modern sources or contemporary to Jesus’s time? I was rebutting the ability to use modern records of miracles to prove Christ. If you want the historical evidence you can begin by looking here: http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=1957 Those would be undeniable in court, yet deniable to an atheist or agnostic. You like many atheists and agnostics like to change the goalpost when it comes to evidence for God.

7. http://www.godandsci...ics/prayer.html Apparently not all double blind prayer studies show no effect. Pastor Matt Chandler survived aggressive brain cancer and he had people praying for him from all over the world.

Yes, I believe that we are His messengers and when we pray for people, they are sometimes miraculously healed, although most of the time people are healed naturally through treatment. Sometimes, in His infinite wisdom, He sees more good in the end of life than the preserving it. Also, since we are all deserving of death due to transgressions of His law, He is justified in whatever He chooses to do. Knowing our hearts, He knows if we will choose Him or not, even if we get more time to live. You underestimate His omniscience, and the limit to your knowledge as a human being.

8. People who believe themselves wise like to imagine plot holes when there are none. The only holes are the holes in our ability to discern the mind of God. You assume that God had not given them a chance to change their ways, and you judge that God was not justified in taking their lives for transgressing His laws. He is God, and not only is He justified, but He was the one who gave them life in the first place. You judge God as if He were your peer, and it is illogical.

1. I really do not know exactly why God does not choose to perform overt miracles that you are describing today for non-believers. I will have to ask Him, but I will give more detail as to my thoughts on this later. 1 and 6 are not contradictory at all, they are completely different. 1 is about overt miracles not convincing all people that Jesus was God since they wanted to believe otherwise. 6 is about that evidence being established by those who witnessed His resurrection by testifying to it on pain of death. This fits in with my point perfectly, overt miracles don’t convince everyone, and historical evidence has already been established about the deity of Christ so overt miracles would not add anything to that fact. “Christ is Lord” written in the clouds would be assumed that Christians put it there, not God. There’s always a convenient explanation for those who don’t want to believe.

2. Yet you have not proven that he has not responded ever, so your claim that He never does is an argument from ignorance.

3. No, they don’t contradict and I am not even sure why you would claim that except to make your arguments look better, or maybe you typed the wrong numbers? The martyrs who chose to die witnessed Jesus come back from the dead. Once the martyrs stood in the company of God, they could not deny Him, knowing that they would face Him after death. The ultimate good is to be saved. No one would choose to be saved since they all start out as enemies of God. They especially would not choose to suffer to get to know who He is, but this is what the result can be.

4. This is one of the most dangerous fallacies I can imagine. Can we stop being overdramatic now? You take the suffering that God allows in all His omniscient glory, and red herring the conversation over to personal actions made by the followers of God. No I do not advocate withholding care from cancer patients. Quite the opposite, I believe that the availability of treatment and wisdom to discover new treatments is part of the common grace of God.

Many people suffered and died to get people into heaven, ESPECIALLY Jesus, so no, no amount of suffering is too much to get people into heaven. This suffering is for God to decide, not us lowly humans who can’t even decide who to choose for president.

5. Would you die if someone threatened to chop off your head or recant evolution? People don’t simply die for any belief, it has to be worth dying for. In the case of the apostles, they witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, which changed their mourning to hope, and their denial of Him to an iron will to testify for Him in the face of death.

6. Are you talking about modern sources or contemporary to Jesus’s time? I was rebutting the ability to use modern records of miracles to prove Christ. If you want the historical evidence you can begin by looking here: http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=1957 Those would be undeniable in court, yet deniable to an atheist or agnostic. You like many atheists and agnostics like to change the goalpost when it comes to evidence for God.

7. http://www.godandsci...ics/prayer.html Apparently not all double blind prayer studies show no effect. Pastor Matt Chandler survived aggressive brain cancer and he had people praying for him from all over the world.

Yes, I believe that we are His messengers and when we pray for people, they are sometimes miraculously healed, although most of the time people are healed naturally through treatment. Sometimes, in His infinite wisdom, He sees more good in the end of life than the preserving it. Also, since we are all deserving of death due to transgressions of His law, He is justified in whatever He chooses to do. Knowing our hearts, He knows if we will choose Him or not, even if we get more time to live. You underestimate His omniscience, and the limit to your knowledge as a human being.

8. People who believe themselves wise like to imagine plot holes when there are none. The only holes are the holes in our ability to discern the mind of God. You assume that God had not given them a chance to change their ways, and you judge that God was not justified in taking their lives for transgressing His laws. He is God, and not only is He justified, but He was the one who gave them life in the first place. You judge God as if He were your peer, and it is illogical.

1. Let's assume that some people can never be convinced that god exists via miracles. That doesn't mean that no people can be convinced that god exists via miracles. If there are people who currently don't believe but would if they witnessed a miracle, then god is leaving souls on the table by not performing a miracle for those people. As for the cloud idea, use your imagination and I'm sure you can come up with variations that would address your concerns about thinking christians created it, you could start by replacing a message made of clouds with a message made of metal beams that hover and change color. Or put the message on the moon where there are no christians. Or just cut out the uncertainty altogether and have god speak to each person individually and answer any questions they might have about his existence and past actions.2. Fine, show me an example of a response that comes from god. Please explain how it was determined that god made that response.3. Just because you wouldn't choose to suffer to get to know god doesn't mean nobody would. I'm reminded of the schmidt sting index, where Justin Schmidt went around and let some of the most painful insects on earth bite him just to compare how much their bites hurt. I'm curious why you think nobody with a similar level of curiosity would be willing to experience pain if the result was an increase in knowledge about god. We have plenty of examples of people going through tremendous pain intentionally (self crucifixion for example).4. "no amount of suffering is too much to get people into heaven". That's the dangerous part. If someone actually believed that then they'd be willing to stand by and watch torture or murder as long as they believed the victim would call on god before the end. It's especially dangerous if there's ever a case where someone believed that causing suffering instead of standing by and watching would get people into heaven. That's how inquisitions and holy wars start.5. If I thought that there was a better existence after death, of course I'd choose to be beheaded regardless of what the other option was. It would be foolish not to. That's the problem with using willingness to die as a test of truth. If you think there's a better life after death you remove any negative consequences of death. It turns the choice from 'death vs lie' to 'more happiness' vs 'less happiness'. Any rational person would choose more happiness. If someone believes there's a perfect afterlife (regardless of whether that belief is correct) the only reason to ever not choose death would be if choosing death prevented access to that perfect afterlife.6. You're the one that brought up secular sources being undeniable testimony. I initially assumed you were talking about secular sources in the early ADs. You haven't given me any other examples so I can't tell you what you were originally meaning. The josephus reference is definitely deniable since it's generally considered to be a fraud written by Eusebius ('tribe' is a term Eusebius used frequently while josephus didn't). The others in that link are mostly just descriptions of what chrisitanity claims in much the same way that a magazine article on scientology can discuss the belief in xenu without being evidence that xenu is real.7. http://en.wikipedia....rcessory_prayerByrd and HarrisThe Byrd study had an inconsistent pattern of only six positive outcomes amongst 26 specific problem conditions. A systematic review suggested this indicates possible Type I errorsLeiboviciTo compound the alleged miraculous power of prayer itself, the prayers were performed after the patients had already left the hospital. .....Leibovici later stated that it was "intended lightheartedly to illustrate the importance of asking research questions that fit with scientific modelsApparently prayer works backward in time. Or the results of this study are due to chance.8. I feel I should point out that I'm not judging god as if he were a peer, I'm judging as if he were a character in a book, no different than pointing out that it wasn't very smart for the wicked witch of the west to keep a open bucket of lethal liquid laying around or that villians should stop explaining their plans to the heros before trying to kill them.As for god giving them an opportunity to change, how could such an attempt fail if god has infinite power and knowledge? If I gave you a large amount of resources (people,time,equipment,money) and sent you back to that time period, could you think of a way to stop child sacrifice without killing everyone? Modern medicine and farming machines alone should be enough to get you started convincing people of that time that doing things your way is better than sacrificing children. If you had powers similar to god, wouldn't that task be even easier?

Due to the length of your post I'm not going to quote it point by point. If I don't cover something that you feel is important please point it out and I'll try to get it next time around.

Logic:My "does no god=no logic" question is kind of caught up on the concept of nothing so let's try something different.Let's start from the premise that a generic creater god makes a universe of some sort. Could this hypothetical generic god think in a different way from the christian god? If logic is based on how god thinks, could a non-christian god that thinks differently make logic work differently from the christian god? Could a non-christian god make a square circle using this different logic?

I'd answer no to the last question because logic is independent of any god no matter how it thinks. Otherwise it'd be possible for a non-logical god to create contradictions such as itself both existing and not existing or being the christian god and not the christian god. I suspect your answer to this might be something along the lines of the questions being invalid due to the christian god being the only possible god. If that's the case try this alternate set of questions:

If christianity (jesus, bible, miracles, the universe being consistent, etc.) were a prank put on by a deceptive non-christian god, can you agree this would be unknowable and indistinguishable from the christian god being real until the prank ended? If it's possible for the christian god to be a character played by a deceptive god could this deceptive non-christian god ever think illogically or is logic something required regardless of the nature of god?

Logic and math are both systems created by humans that are based on assumed axioms. A=A and 1=1 are unprovable in math or logic but are considered as not needing any proof due to being self-evident. These axioms aren't physical because they aren't real things, they are just starting points we pick because we can't think of any ideas more simple or obvious. The absoluteness of these systems comes from internal consistancy.Information is basically just the position of matter or energy. Meaning or linguistic information is a link between two different arrangements of matter or energy.Thought is a result of the brain. We don't know the full process but we can identify the regions responsible for different types of thoughts and emotions and show that altering the brain alters thinking.

Morality:You appear to be arguing against a specific type of relative morality that wikipedia calls normative. Very few people hold that position. http://en.wikipedia....ivism#NormativeThere are other forms of non-absolute moralities that don't require treating all behavior as morally acceptable. I consider the morality of an action to vary depending on context, if someone else has a different moral opinion than I do, I am under no obligation to agree with him. There's no logical contradiction in two different people holding different moral opinions because opinions are relative. It's logically permissible for Alice to like Bobs behavior and Carol to hate Bobs behavior. It would only be a contradiction if the same person both liked and hated Bobs behavior.

The fact that a action can't be absolutely morally wrong if it's ok in some circumstances is true by definition. The term absolute morality refers to actions that are always morally right or always morally wrong.It can't be absolutely wrong to lie if it's morally right to lie to nazi's about where jews are hiding.It can't be absolutely wrong to kill babies if god was morally right to kill babies in the flood and in sodom/gomorrah and with egypts firstborn.

1. Let's assume that some people can never be convinced that god exists via miracles. That doesn't mean that no people can be convinced that god exists via miracles. If there are people who currently don't believe but would if they witnessed a miracle, then god is leaving souls on the table by not performing a miracle for those people. As for the cloud idea, use your imagination and I'm sure you can come up with variations that would address your concerns about thinking christians created it, you could start by replacing a message made of clouds with a message made of metal beams that hover and change color. Or put the message on the moon where there are no christians. Or just cut out the uncertainty altogether and have god speak to each person individually and answer any questions they might have about his existence and past actions.2. Fine, show me an example of a response that comes from god. Please explain how it was determined that god made that response.3. Just because you wouldn't choose to suffer to get to know god doesn't mean nobody would. I'm reminded of the schmidt sting index, where Justin Schmidt went around and let some of the most painful insects on earth bite him just to compare how much their bites hurt. I'm curious why you think nobody with a similar level of curiosity would be willing to experience pain if the result was an increase in knowledge about god. We have plenty of examples of people going through tremendous pain intentionally (self crucifixion for example).4. "no amount of suffering is too much to get people into heaven". That's the dangerous part. If someone actually believed that then they'd be willing to stand by and watch torture or murder as long as they believed the victim would call on god before the end. It's especially dangerous if there's ever a case where someone believed that causing suffering instead of standing by and watching would get people into heaven. That's how inquisitions and holy wars start.5. If I thought that there was a better existence after death, of course I'd choose to be beheaded regardless of what the other option was. It would be foolish not to. That's the problem with using willingness to die as a test of truth. If you think there's a better life after death you remove any negative consequences of death. It turns the choice from 'death vs lie' to 'more happiness' vs 'less happiness'. Any rational person would choose more happiness. If someone believes there's a perfect afterlife (regardless of whether that belief is correct) the only reason to ever not choose death would be if choosing death prevented access to that perfect afterlife.6. You're the one that brought up secular sources being undeniable testimony. I initially assumed you were talking about secular sources in the early ADs. You haven't given me any other examples so I can't tell you what you were originally meaning. The josephus reference is definitely deniable since it's generally considered to be a fraud written by Eusebius ('tribe' is a term Eusebius used frequently while josephus didn't). The others in that link are mostly just descriptions of what chrisitanity claims in much the same way that a magazine article on scientology can discuss the belief in xenu without being evidence that xenu is real.7. http://en.wikipedia....rcessory_prayerByrd and HarrisThe Byrd study had an inconsistent pattern of only six positive outcomes amongst 26 specific problem conditions. A systematic review suggested this indicates possible Type I errorsLeiboviciTo compound the alleged miraculous power of prayer itself, the prayers were performed after the patients had already left the hospital. .....Leibovici later stated that it was "intended lightheartedly to illustrate the importance of asking research questions that fit with scientific modelsApparently prayer works backward in time. Or the results of this study are due to chance.8. I feel I should point out that I'm not judging god as if he were a peer, I'm judging as if he were a character in a book, no different than pointing out that it wasn't very smart for the wicked witch of the west to keep a open bucket of lethal liquid laying around or that villians should stop explaining their plans to the heros before trying to kill them.As for god giving them an opportunity to change, how could such an attempt fail if god has infinite power and knowledge? If I gave you a large amount of resources (people,time,equipment,money) and sent you back to that time period, could you think of a way to stop child sacrifice without killing everyone? Modern medicine and farming machines alone should be enough to get you started convincing people of that time that doing things your way is better than sacrificing children. If you had powers similar to god, wouldn't that task be even easier?

1. You assume that God is not currently working in people’s lives, showing them personal miracles. This may be based on life experience, but based on stories Christians tell all the time of God working in their lives, revealing Himself to them, your claim is baseless.

2. This is an attempt to shift burden of proof off of yourself. Since you claim that God has not made a response, the burden of proof is on you to support that claim. My point being, you cannot substantiate this claim, I was just hoping you would realize this.

3. This was just a messy hypothetical, my attempt at discerning the mind of God (which I don’t doubt falls woefully short). Someone who doesn’t want to meet God or who thinks believing in Him is silly, gets cancer. Then, because of their suffering and circumstances, they learn about God and put their faith in Him as their savior would ultimately be better than never having gotten the cancer. Of course there are people that are willing to suffer to become closer to God, but that is because their inclination is already toward God.

Even people who don't care about God may find themselves valuing life more in the face of death than when they were disease free. This can lead to more joy. This would be even more profound if their alternate life path would have resulted in more suffering. All in a day's work for an omniscient being.

4. I will give you the point that holy wars and inquisitions are bad, and that there is a danger of crazy people misinterpreting the Bible and attempting to please God (instead of listening to what God is telling them to do). You must have missed where I said “This suffering is for God to decide, not us lowly humans who can’t even decide who to choose for president.”

5. Exactly, which means either they were deceived into believing that Jesus is God, or they saw miracles that proved it. Since they suddenly turned from mourning and despair after He died, to joy and a passion to spread the Gospel to the entire world when they saw Him alive after being crucified and verified dead by a Roman executioner, it is impossible that Jesus just pulled off an elaborate ruse. His mother, His brothers, and His closest friends were there to verify that it was in fact Jesus being murdered, and they were ultimately the ones that began testifying that He was raised from the dead, and seen by hundreds of people. You would not expect that from people spreading lies about a dead loved one. Furthermore, His brothers who did not testify to His deity before, began spreading the Gospel and worshipping Him as God. This would be extremely bizarre if they had not seen Him be raised from the dead. These people were Jews who feared God whether it was Jesus or not, and would not lie about someone, claiming they were God, when they had not substantiated it beyond doubt. The first hand eyewitnesses kindly wrote this all down for us. Not just one person, not just one book. Six writers, Matthew, John, Peter, James, Jude and Paul, and twenty seven books.

6. Wrong, the writings of Josephus are in contention but the idea that Eusebius wrote some of all of it is not certain. The rest of the writings are secular sources confirming details as recorded in the Bible by historians around that time.

Notice that while Tacitus had no favorable regard for these Christians of whom he wrote, he does mention Christ as being the founder of their belief. He also confirms that Tiberius was emperor at the time, and that Pontius was the magistrate (or Procurator) who sentenced Jesus to death. All corroborating New Testament facts.

Suetonius (Roman historian, born about 88 A. D.). While Suetonius does not mention Christ by name, he does refer to His title and to Christianity. This reference (amongst many more) clearly prove the early origin of Christianity and details that are in agreement with the biblical account. Here, a brief writing about the life of Nero whose reign began in 54 A.D. and ended in 68 A. D.:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he Claudius expelled them from Rome". and elsewhere he wrote "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous sect". (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars).

At the very least, this confirms that Jesus was a Jew who was murdered at the hands of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and who began to be worshiped as a deity by Christians after His death, people who claim He rose from the grave. That is pretty much all the confirmation you need until you analyze the eyewitness accounts themselves to verify their internal consistency, which I wrote about in point 5. It wouldn't make sense for loved ones and close friends to worship someone as God without strong confirmation, especially in Jewish culture. They were in despair when He died, and when He rose from the grave, they began worshiping Him with even more zeal.

Wouldn't you expect some contention if the Bible was a big scam, lying about historical events? Yet we find none written until much later (apocryphal writings if you can call them contention, I call them story telling). Paul wrote letters to people reminding them that they were witnesses as well, so they could not deny what he was saying about Jesus. How confident must he have been in what he was writing? Add to that the number of copies found and the date that they were said to have come from and you have a document that is more reliable than any other early written historical record.

7. Why wouldn’t prayer work back in time? This is not proof that God did nothing, to me, He may have slightly changed things for them to suffer less, but known that ultimately, they would be happier this way, or experience less suffering than the alternative healthy life path. I admit that this study does not show undeniable proof for the efficacy of prayer. Then again, we can't look into the mind of God to see why He may not have instantly cured them. Perhaps it has something to do with Him allowing them to become ill in the first place. He does not prevent all suffering. If I never knew what suffering was, then I would not know how awesome joy was (or imagine how horrific hell would be really).

8. It is absurd to condemn an infinite God for taking a life that He created in the first place. All life is a privilege that He has given to us and all life will eventually end. To say that non-lethal force should have been used is an easy attempt at knocking down the straw man that I foolishly set up by attempting to discern the mind of God. That is pretty much all I am able to do with such questions, so rather than continuing to line em up so you can knock em down, I will stop discussing such points (3,7, and 8).

Due to the length of your post I'm not going to quote it point by point. If I don't cover something that you feel is important please point it out and I'll try to get it next time around.

Logic:My "does no god=no logic" question is kind of caught up on the concept of nothing so let's try something different.Let's start from the premise that a generic creator god makes a universe of some sort. Could this hypothetical generic god think in a different way from the christian god? If logic is based on how god thinks, could a non-christian god that thinks differently make logic work differently from the christian god? Could a non-christian god make a square circle using this different logic?

Miles, we are having much trouble with you admitting to the true God that created all that exists—including you. The universe could not have created itself from nothing (first law) and it could not have always been here (second law). The only alternative you have left is a supernatural Creator Who is outside and prior to you and the universe coming into existence.

I really can’t answer your question as to how this hypothetical non-existent god would think. I only know what the true God thinks because He has revealed some of His thoughts to us in His word (special revelation). We also have general revelation that we can look at in His creation.

I'd answer no to the last question because logic is independent of any god no matter how it thinks. Otherwise it'd be possible for a non-logical god to create contradictions such as itself both existing and not existing or being the christian god and not the christian god. I suspect your answer to this might be something along the lines of the questions being invalid due to the christian god being the only possible god. If that's the case try this alternate set of questions:

If christianity (jesus, bible, miracles, the universe being consistent, etc.) were a prank put on by a deceptive non-christian god, can you agree this would be unknowable and indistinguishable from the christian god being real until the prank ended? If it's possible for the christian god to be a character played by a deceptive god could this deceptive non-christian god ever think illogically or is logic something required regardless of the nature of god?[

Miles, I have asked you to justify or account for laws of logic, rational thought, information, mathematics, morality, and any of the abstracts such as dignity, liberty, justice in your materialistic worldview. Instead of you accepting your ability to REASON coming from a Being who can reason, you want to believe that matter will somehow magically give you these immaterial gifts. Basically, your argument is logic, rational thought, information, mathematics, morality, etc., exist because they exist.

Please explain how a rock or a chemical will give you the ability to reason? I would like you to explain this. Please!

Logic and math are both systems created by humans that are based on assumed axioms. A=A and 1=1 are unprovable in math or logic but are considered as not needing any proof due to being self-evident. These axioms aren't physical because they aren't real things, they are just starting points we pick because we can't think of any ideas more simple or obvious. The absoluteness of these systems comes from internal consistancy.

For you to post this, you have to have a “mind” that can reason. Physical matter will not give you these things. They were not created because they are not physical. Man can’t create BB unless he uses God's dirt. You take for granted your ability to “think,” but thinking is not the motion of chemicals in your brain. If thinking were simply the motion of chemicals in your brain, you could not KNOW anything was true—not even that your brain is composed of chemicals. Thinking is non-physical. Your brain is a physical organ. The physical will not give you the non-physical. If you can present proof to the contrary, I would like to hear it. Again, your argument is logic and math exist because they exist.

Information is basically just the position of matter or energy. Meaning or linguistic information is a link between two different arrangements of matter or energy.

1. Information is not physical. You can’t deny this.

2. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

3. When information’s progress along a chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source—the mind of the sender.

Thought is a result of the brain. We don't know the full process but we can identify the regions responsible for different types of thoughts and emotions and show that altering the brain alters thinking.

The brain is a physical organ. Do you agree?

Thoughts are not physical. Do you agree?

Emotions are not physical. Do you agree?

The brain is our interface with the physical world. But you are a spiritual being created in the image of God. You are more than just a composite of chemicals and molecules. If your brain were simply physical, it may be able to compute 2 plus 2 equals four. But you would never KNOW that it is true and not false that 2 plus 2 equals four. The physical brain is just that—physical.

Morality:You appear to be arguing against a specific type of relative morality that wikipedia calls normative. Very few people hold that position.

There are other forms of non-absolute moralities that don't require treating all behavior as morally acceptable. I consider the morality of an action to vary depending on context, if someone else has a different moral opinion than I do, I am under no obligation to agree with him. There's no logical contradiction in two different people holding different moral opinions because opinions are relative. It's logically permissible for Alice to like Bobs behavior and Carol to hate Bobs behavior. It would only be a contradiction if the same person both liked and hated Bobs behavior.Miles, down here in Texas where I live, the old timers would respond to this argument with: “I’d better put on higher boots.” What you’re saying here is that relative morality is okay if more than one person is involved. Recall I argued (which you did not address) that just as a matter can't be both true and false at the same time, so too, a moral behavior can't be both moral and immoral at the same time. Can you argue that truth would be relative if more than one person is in the equation? Let’s look at your logic here.

TeeJay’s opinion is that it’s okay shoot Miles and take his money, his car, his house, and his woman.

Miles opinion is that it’s not okay for TeeJay to do this.

Is it true that TeeJay’s actions are moral and immoral at the same time--even though you argue that what's moral for TeeJay is not moral for Miles? No! It is either true that TeeJay’s actions are immoral or it is not true that TeeJay’s actions are immoral. I submit that you can’t possibly live in this relativistic nightmare you’ve created for yourself.

The fact that a action can't be absolutely morally wrong if it's ok in some circumstances is true by definition. The term absolute morality refers to actions that are always morally right or always morally wrong.

But in your atheistic relativist’s worldview, NOTHING can be moral or immoral. What justification could you possibly give to justify a behavior as “always morally right or always morally wrong”? You can’t give what you do not have to give. Such is life without God.

It can't be absolutely wrong to lie if it's morally right to lie to nazi's about where jews are hiding.

Is what you posted here absolutely true? Before you answer, realize that above you argued that relative morality is okay if more than one person is involved. Question for you, though: God says it’s okay to lie to bad people who want to kill good people. But is it okay to lie to good people so bad people can kill them? You can give me an opinion or a preference butyou can't give a justification.

It can't be absolutely wrong to kill babies if god was morally right to kill babies in the flood and in sodom/gomorrah and with egypts firstborn.

I will address your moral argument against God when you admit that there is absolute morality. And, of course, then you will have to justify absolute morality, which you can’t do unless you acknowledge God.

To make this a little interesting, I'm going to play Satan's advocate:

How do you know that the Bible came from the mouth of God?

Why do you not have doubts?

Why do you believe it 100 percent?

TeeJay

Backward deduction.

A God either wants human followers or He doesn't. If He doesn't then we don't need to worship Him or believe in Him as He never demands your faith/belie/worship. In this case, it makes not much difference to say that He doesn't exist as His existence never concerns you.

If however God wants human followers, He has to leave humans with an infallible reference. Or else humans will be clueless about who God is. And for this reference to be carried forward along side human history, He must also assign an earthly authority as a keeper of the reference. Or else everyone can pop up to claim that he has the genuine reference.

In summary, if God is a true God then- He must leave humans with an infallible reference such as a Bible,- and for this Bible to be carried forward along with human history an earthly authority must be assigned

It happens that Christianity is such a religion (seems to be the only one) which claims to have an infallible Bible and with an earthly authority assigned anytime with this infallible Bible. Since this is an earthly authority it is corruptible and thus must be re-assignable. It is thus shifted from the Jews to the Catholics till the Protestants. However canonically they all share the same OT with the Catholics and Protestants keeping the same NT.

As a result, you either believe that God is true or He's not. If you believe that God is true, the Bible must be infallible and 100% correct.

Miles, we are having much trouble with you admitting to the true God that created all that exists—including you. The universe could not have created itself from nothing (first law) and it could not have always been here (second law). The only alternative you have left is a supernatural Creator Who is outside and prior to you and the universe coming into existence.

The first law does not prohibit the universe coming from nothing.

Miles, I have asked you to justify or account for laws of logic, rational thought, information, mathematics, morality, and any of the abstracts such as dignity, liberty, justice in your materialistic worldview. Instead of you accepting your ability to REASON coming from a Being who can reason, you want to believe that matter will somehow magically give you these immaterial gifts. Basically, your argument is logic, rational thought, information, mathematics, morality, etc., exist because they exist.

Please explain how a rock or a chemical will give you the ability to reason? I would like you to explain this. Please!

If you are asking for a full explanation of how the brain works, there isn't one currently. This does not mean that a spiritual answer becomes true by default. Simply saying "the soul/god does it" is not a explanation for how we experience awareness or thoughts, it just covers the question with a label. If the soul or god is the source of reason then what use is the physical brain and why is there a brain in animals that aren't considered to have a soul? How does a non-physical thing interact with a physical brain and why can't it interact with other physical things?

For you to post this, you have to have a “mind” that can reason. Physical matter will not give you these things. They were not created because they are not physical. Man can’t create BB unless he uses God's dirt. You take for granted your ability to “think,” but thinking is not the motion of chemicals in your brain. If thinking were simply the motion of chemicals in your brain, you could not KNOW anything was true—not even that your brain is composed of chemicals. Thinking is non-physical. Your brain is a physical organ. The physical will not give you the non-physical. If you can present proof to the contrary, I would like to hear it. Again, your argument is logic and math exist because they exist.

What is the basis for arguing that thoughts are non-physical? Everything we know about the brain indicates that it is the physical cause of our thoughts. If we alter or stimulate the brain we can change or produce thoughts, feelings, and memories.

1. Information is not physical. You can’t deny this.

Of course I deny it. Information is the physical state of something. The shape of a rock is information, the angle of a tree branch is information, the wavelength of light is information, the shape of ink blots on a page is information. These are all physical characteristics. If you are refering to meaning, that's a link between two or more physical states. In common usage this is limited to links created by humans in the mind so it could be argued that meaning requires a mind, but as memories appear to be stored in the brain via physical processes, ultimately meaning would also be physical.

2. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

3. When information’s progress along a chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source—the mind of the sender.

We obviously have very different definitions of information. Can you give an example of non-human produced information that was traced back to a mental source?

The brain is a physical organ. Do you agree?

Thoughts are not physical. Do you agree?

Emotions are not physical. Do you agree?

Yes, No, and No. We can alter thoughts and emotions by stimulating the brain in certain physical ways. Physically damaging the brain can impair or change thoughts and emotions.

http://neuroskeptic....will-again.htmlStimulation of all these sites produced a pure intention, that is, a felt desire to move without any overt movement being produced... Without prompting by the examiner, all three patients spontaneously used terms such as “will,” “desire,” and “wanting to,” which convey the voluntary character of the movement intention and its attribution to an internal source, that is, located within the self.[/indent][indent=1][with higher electrode currents] conscious motor intentions were replaced by a sensation that a movement had been accomplished [but] no actual movement was observed. Thus, these patients experienced awareness of an illusory movement. For example, patient PP3 reported after low-intensity stimulation of one site (5 mA, 4 s; site a in Fig. 1), “I felt a desire to lick my lips” and at a higher intensity (8 mA, 4 s), “I moved my mouth, I talked, what did I say?”

The brain is our interface with the physical world. But you are a spiritual being created in the image of God. You are more than just a composite of chemicals and molecules. If your brain were simply physical, it may be able to compute 2 plus 2 equals four. But you would never KNOW that it is true and not false that 2 plus 2 equals four. The physical brain is just that—physical.

The brain being just a interface to the world for a spiritual entity is not supported by any evidence. There are regions of the brain that do not process sensory data which means they'd be pointless if the brain were solely a method of transmitting sense data from the world to a soul that did the actual thinking and experiencing. If the brain were the equivalent of an antenna there'd be no need for anything more than a sender/receiver and nerve endings going to the various muscles needed to drive the body. There'd also be the problem of how or why a soul communicated to the brain. Why couldn't a soul transmit and receive signals directly to the various body parts instead of needing to connect via the brain? If we removed or isolated a section of neurons from the rest of the brain why wouldn't the soul just keep sending signals to it? That would be a testable prediction (isolated neurons firing as if they are still connected to the brain). If the brain communicated with a soul that was where the actual thinking occured, you could also theoretically do something like remove the visual cortex portion of your brain, stimulate it with electricity while it's sitting in a petri dish, and then have your soul send signals to your mouth to report what it saw despite not having the visual cortex inside your head or connected to your eyes.

Miles, down here in Texas where I live, the old timers would respond to this argument with: “I’d better put on higher boots.” What you’re saying here is that relative morality is okay if more than one person is involved. Recall I argued (which you did not address) that just as a matter can't be both true and false at the same time, so too, a moral behavior can't be both moral and immoral at the same time. Can you argue that truth would be relative if more than one person is in the equation? Let’s look at your logic here.

Yes I can argue that truth can be relative with more than one person in the equation. If I state an object is moving and you state the same object is stationary, it's possible for both statements to be true to the person making them if we are in different inertial reference frames. Both statements are true, while being different from each other, because the truth is relative to the person making the statement.

TeeJay’s opinion is that it’s okay shoot Miles and take his money, his car, his house, and his woman.

Miles opinion is that it’s not okay for TeeJay to do this.

Is it true that TeeJay’s actions are moral and immoral at the same time--even though you argue that what's moral for TeeJay is not moral for Miles? No! It is either true that TeeJay’s actions are immoral or it is not true that TeeJay’s actions are immoral. I submit that you can’t possibly live in this relativistic nightmare you’ve created for yourself.

It isn't true that Teejay's actions are moral and immoral at the same time to the same person. It's only true that TeeJay's actions are moral to Teejay at the same time that Teejay's actions are immoral to Miles. You are treating this as if there were something holding both opinions at once or as if there were a separate independent reference point for morality. Neither case is necessarily true.

Try this. Teejay thinks sushi is delicous. Miles thinks sushi is awful. Your reasoning would suggest that this is logically impossible since it would mean that sushi was both delicious and awful at the same time. And yet I don't think you have any difficulty in accepting that there's no logical contradiction in two different people having two different opinions on food.

But in your atheistic relativist’s worldview, NOTHING can be moral or immoral. What justification could you possibly give to justify a behavior as “always morally right or always morally wrong”? You can’t give what you do not have to give. Such is life without God.

Things can be moral or immoral, they are just moral or immoral based on context and convention rather than absolute rules set down by god. I'm not the one suggesting that there are behaviors that are always right or always wrong. But since you asked, if a behavior always had a negative result with absolutely no possible benefit then it could be considered always morally wrong. If a behavior always had a positive result with no possible downside then it could be considered absolutely right. There are few to none of those types of actions however.

It can't be absolutely wrong to lie if it's morally right to lie to nazi's about where jews are hiding.

Is what you posted here absolutely true? Before you answer, realize that above you argued that relative morality is okay if more than one person is involved. Question for you, though: God says it’s okay to lie to bad people who want to kill good people. But is it okay to lie to good people so bad people can kill them? You can give me an opinion or a preference butyou can't give a justification.

Yes, as long as "absolutely wrong" means "always wrong", then my statement is absolutely true and it has nothing to do with multiple people being involved. For something to always be wrong, there can't be exceptions where it is right. There are lots of justifications that I could give you for why it's wrong to lie to good people so they could be killed, they just wouldn't necessarily hold up for all circumstances. The easiest exception I can think of would be if lying to good people and getting them killed saved other good people from being killed. The (possibly fictional) WW2 story where Churchill didn't warn a town about a bombing in order to prevent the germans from knowing their codes were broken, would be an example of this type of scenario.

I wasn't aware god added a "unless you are talking to bad people" exception to the prohibitions on lying and bearing false witness. If lying to killers is morally acceptable to god doesn't that mean that god is able to lie to killers without violating any of his rules?

Things can be moral or immoral, they are just moral or immoral based on context and convention rather than absolute rules set down by god. I'm not the one suggesting that there are behaviors that are always right or always wrong. But since you asked, if a behavior always had a negative result with absolutely no possible benefit then it could be considered always morally wrong. If a behavior always had a positive result with no possible downside then it could be considered absolutely right. There are few to none of those types of actions however.

Yes, as long as "absolutely wrong" means "always wrong", then my statement is absolutely true and it has nothing to do with multiple people being involved. For something to always be wrong, there can't be exceptions where it is right. There are lots of justifications that I could give you for why it's wrong to lie to good people so they could be killed, they just wouldn't necessarily hold up for all circumstances. The easiest exception I can think of would be if lying to good people and getting them killed saved other good people from being killed. The (possibly fictional) WW2 story where Churchill didn't warn a town about a bombing in order to prevent the germans from knowing their codes were broken, would be an example of this type of scenario.

Miles you've already been proven wrong about the first law on the other thread, so please stop positing falsehoods even you've been shown how they are entirely false.

Your 2nd paragraph seeks to claim that there are no moral absolutes. Therefore we can derive from this claim that rape / murder / torture of babies etc can in effect be a morally "good" thing since there is no absolute standard to claim such things as definitively bad.

Yet these things ARE claimed to be evil / bad no matter the context hence your claims here are not fitting within what reality demonstrates. The fact these things are claimed to be evil despite their context means that they are objectively evil. Therefore objective morals do exist. (You cannot debate this since it is based on reality, in order to defy this you would need to defy reality itself).

Its funny that you accept absolutes in your third paragraph.... Do you see how this conflicts with your claims in the 2nd one?

Miles you've already been proven wrong about the first law on the other thread, so please stop positing falsehoods even you've been shown how they are entirely false.

Your 2nd paragraph seeks to claim that there are no moral absolutes. Therefore we can derive from this claim that rape / murder / torture of babies etc can in effect be a morally "good" thing since there is no absolute standard to claim such things as definitively bad.

Yet these things ARE claimed to be evil / bad no matter the context hence your claims here are not fitting within what reality demonstrates. The fact these things are claimed to be evil despite their context means that they are objectively evil. Therefore objective morals do exist. (You cannot debate this since it is based on reality, in order to defy this you would need to defy reality itself).

Its funny that you accept absolutes in your third paragraph.... Do you see how this conflicts with your claims in the 2nd one?

I'm saying that morality is conditional and based on goals and context rather than being the result of something independent of the physical world like god. Due to common experiences of physical reality, some goals are universal (or so close to universal that we can usually treat them as such). For example it is generally safe to assume that everyone who is alive wishes to live and avoid pain. We can therefore derive rules against actions that cause pain or loss of life from these goals. These rules are conditional, in that they only remain valid as long as these premises are true (masochists or suicidal people would be exceptions). They also can only remain universally true as long as they don't conflict with each other. Once they conflict one rule is going to take precedence which means the other is not absolutely true in all cases. For example, most would agree that it's not morally wrong to cause pain to children via medical procedures in order to preserve their life. Killing a crying baby to prevent it from revealing the location of a hiding group is another example where two supposedly universal rules would conflict.

Teejay posted this

Moral laws describe God’s nature. Logic laws describe how God thinks. Physical laws describe how the physical world functions. Now if God had created a different universe, the physical laws would, by necessity, be different. But could the moral laws be different than what they are? Yes, but then God would violate His own nature.

If god had the same nature but created a universe with different physical laws, the moral rules would also change which contradicts the idea that moral rules are based on gods nature. For example if the rules of physics/biology were such that humans didn't experience pain there would no longer be moral rules against torture. If the physical laws were changed that theft just made a copy of an object instead of removing the object from your possession, the moral rules on theft would be different. If murder victims just got up unharmed after being dead for a second, murder would at worst be considered rude.